![](bg8.png)
(Heterogeneous Matching Tool) whose architecture
is already defined. Thirdly, we will exploit the cor-
respondence model to address some maintenance
issue in the case where source models evolve. Our
goal is to provide a semi-automatic collaborative
process allowing to (i) update the M1C model, (ii)
calculate impacts of a change in a given source
model, (iii) propose modifications to maintain the
consistency of the system.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank the PHC Volubilis committee for funding
this project (MA/11/254), and our colleague K.A.
Kedji for his valuable remarks.
REFERENCES
Agner, L., Soares, I., Stadzisz, P., and Simao, J. Model
refinement in the model driven architecture context.
Journal of Computer Science, 8.
Anwar, A., Ebersold, S., Coulette, B., Nassar, M., and
Kriouile, A. (2010). A rule-driven approach for com-
posing viewpoint-oriented models. Journal of Object
Technology, 9(2):89–114.
Barbier, E. (2009). Contrats de transformation pour la
validation de raffinement de modèles. IDM 2009 Actes
des 5emes journées sur l’Ingénierie Dirigée par les
Modèles, page 1.
BPMN, O. (2011). Omg bpmn-v2.0.
http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/PDF.
Castano, S., De Antonellis, V., and De Capitani di Vimer-
cati, S. (2001). Global viewing of heterogeneous data
sources. IEEE Trans. on Knowl. and Data Eng.,
13(2):277–297.
Clasen, C., Jouault, F., and Cabot, J. (2011). Virtualemf: a
model virtualization tool. In Advances in Conceptual
Modeling. Recent Developments and New Directions,
pages 332–335. Springer.
Del Fabro, M., Bezivin, J., Jouault, F., Breton, E., and
Gueltas, G. (2005). AMW: a generic model weaver.
Proceedings of the 1ère Journée sur l’Ingénierie Diri-
gée par les Modèles (IDM05), 3(4.7):7–11.
Drey, Z., Faucher, C., Fleurey, F., Mahé, V., and Vojtisek,
D. (2009). Kermeta language. Reference Manual.
Eker, J., Janneck, J. W., Lee, E. A., Liu, J., Liu, X.,
Ludvig, J., Neuendorffer, S., Sachs, S., and Xiong, Y.
(2003). Taming heterogeneity-the ptolemy approach.
Proceedings of the IEEE, 91(1):127–144.
Fenza, G., Loia, V., and Senatore, S. (2008). A hybrid
approach to semantic web services matchmaking. In-
ternational Journal of Approximate Reasoning,
48(3):808–828.
Kolovos, D., Paige, R., and Polack, F. (2006). Model
comparison: a foundation for model composition and
model transformation testing. In Proceedings of the
2006 international workshop on Global integrated
model management, pages 13–20. ACM.
Kolovos, D. S. (2009). Establishing correspondences
between models with the epsilon comparison lan-
guage. In Proceedings of the 5th European Conference
on Model Driven Architecture - Foundations and Ap-
plications, ECMDA-FA ’09, pages 146–157, Berlin,
Heidelberg. Springer-Verlag.
mantisbt (2010). Mantis bug tracker.
http://www.mantisbt.org/index.php.
Ober, I., Coulette, B., and Lakhrissi, Y. (2008). Behavioral
Modelling and Composition of Object Slices Using
Event Observation. In Bruel, J.-M., Czarnecki, K., and
Ober, I., editors, ACM/IEEE International Conference
on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems
(MODELS), Toulouse, 28/09/2008-03/10/2008, num-
ber 5301 in LNCS, pages 219–233,
http://www.springerlink.com. Springer.
Tisi, M., Cabot, J., and Jouault, F. (2010). Improving
higher-order transformations support in atl. Theory
and Practice of Model Transformations, pages 215–
229.
UML, O. (2007). Uml 2.0: Superstructure specification.
http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.1.2/Superstructure/P
DF/.
ENASE2013-8thInternationalConferenceonEvaluationofNovelSoftwareApproachestoSoftwareEngineering
188